Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00627
Original file (ND99-00627.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

ex-AA, USN
Docket No. ND99-00627

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990406 requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not list a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000214. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 MY DISCHARGE FROM THE US NAVY WASN’T EQUIVALENT TO THE TIME I SERVE & WHAT I WAS OFFERED AT TIME OF ENLISTMENT, I WAS TOLD TO CHOOSE A SCHOOL OR TAKE THE RATING EXAM, SO I TOOK THE AVIATION ORDINANCE & PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS EXAM, BUT MY COMMAND CAREER COUNSELOR DIDN’T EVEN GIVE ME THE QUALIFICATIONS, I DID ALL THE BOOKS, THE OJT AND EVERYTHING THAT I NEEDED TO MAKE THE RATE, EXCEPT THEY FORGOT TO TELL ME I NEEDED TO BE A CITICENSHIP, SO MY COMMAND DECIDED ME TO TAKE THE AK3 EXAM, AFTER MY CO’S MAST, PRIOR TO THAT I REQUESTED A HM “A” SCHOOL BUT THEY TOLD ME I NEEDED TO BE A YEAR ON THE COMMAND, 1YR WENT BY, I REAPPLY & I WAS TOLD TO WAIT ANOTHER YEAR CAUSE I SHOULD TAKE AN AVIATION RATING, SO THAT’S WHEN I DECIDED TO BECOME AN “AO” BEFORE MY ENLISTMENT CAME UP SO I COULD DECIDE TO REENLIS OR BECOME A CIVILIAN, BUT NO MY “AO” TEST WAS CANCEL CAUSE I DIDN’T HAVE A CITICENSHIP (WHICH IT UNDERSTANDABLE CAUSE ITS CLASSIFIED MATERIAL) BUT I WASN’T TOLD BEFORE I TOOK THE TEST, BUT THEY WAIT UNTIL TEST RESULT CAME BACK, INSTEAD THEY SAID I WAS SUPPOSED TO WAITFOR AN “AK3” TEST, WICH I WAS BROUGH TO CO’S MAST DAYS LATER I WAS TOLD BY THE CO MY TEST WAS ARRIVING , BUT I WAS REDUCED IN RANK TO E-2 & I WAS EXPECTED TO TAKE AN “AK3” RATING TEST, THAT’S WHY I THINK MY DISCHARGE WASN’T ADEQUATE TO THE TIME I SERVED, & WHAT I WAS PROMISED, THAT’S WHY I THINK MY DISCHARGE SHOULD BE UPGRADE TO HONORABLE WITH A RE-1 OR AT LEAST RE-ELEGIBLE TO ENLIST ON THE MARINE CORP. I LIKE THE MILITARY, CAUSE BESIDES WHAT HAPPENED TO ME I WORKED WITH MILLIONS OF FINE AND PROUD PROFESSIONALS, & I ALSO THINK THAT IF THE US NAVY STANDS ON WHAT IT PROMISES TO ITS MEMBERS THEN I DESERVE WHA I REQUESTED, REVIEWING THE FACTS THAT I WAS ALLOWED TO TRAIN AND STUDIED CLASSIFIED MATERIAL, WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THAT I WASN’T ALLOWED TO TAKE THE EXAM OR STUDIED THE RATING , &INSTEAD I’M FORCING TO TAKE THE “AK3” TESTAFTER I’M REDUCED ON RANK TO E-2, I WAS DENIED “HM” “A” SCHOOL FOR TWO YEARS, SO THAT’S WHY I REQUESTED TO CAME HOME, CAUSE THE SYSTEM IS’T NOT SUPPOSED TO WORK ON THAT WAY, BUT GET QUALIFIED AS MUCH AS THE MEMBER CAN POSSIBLY, WHICH I MADE EVERY PROGRAM & CERTIFICATION I WAS REQUIRED , & PROGRAMS I DECIDE WERE GOOD FOR MY EDUCATION AND MY FORMATION AS A US SAILOR, IF YOU WERE ON MY POSITION, YOU’LL ALSO THINK THAT YOU OWN THIS COUNTRY, I WISH TO GIVE WHAT IS BEEN GIVEN TO MY BY THE FOUNDIN FATHER & HEROS THAT DEFEND THIS COUNTRY, I WOULD LIKE TO DO THE SAME, SO I PLEASE YOU TO REVIEW MY CASE & I HOPE TO BE UPGRADE, SO I WILL BE ABLE TO SERVE MY COUNTRY ON AN HONORABLE AND PROUD WAY, & MAKE THIS COUNTRY BETTER & BETTER EVERY DAY, THANKS FOR TAKING YOUR PRECIOUS TIME TO REVIEW THE CASE.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     951006 - 951017  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 951018               Date of Discharge: 980330

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 05 12
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 3

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 43

 Highest Rate: AN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.00 (0)    Behavior: 2.00 (0)                OTA: 2.6

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

971103:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Insubordinate conduct toward a Petty Officer, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Dereliction of Duty.
         Award: Reduction to E-2. Oral reprimand. No indication of appeal in the record.
980113:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article91: Insubordinate conduct toward a Petty Officer.
         Award: Oral Reprimand.

980128:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
980128:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
980123:  Commanding officer recommended discharge of general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980330 general under honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

 The applicants issue (equity) asserts that his discharge was unfair due to its severity. The NDRB found the applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. The term "serious offense" should not be confused with what is considered serious in the civilian world. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) categorizes a wide range of offenses: disrespectful language, failure to obey a lawful order or written regulation, such as not maintaining hair within standards, drunken driving, forgery, missing ship's movement, unauthorized absence for 30 days or more, making false official statements, and so forth, right up to the most "serious" crimes of spying, aiding the enemy in time of war, mutiny, rape and murder. Although all of these offenses come under the broad UCMJ category of "serious offenses," some are clearly more heinous than others. A person in the military must abide by the standards as set forth in the UCMJ, regardless of what guidelines his civilian counterparts might utilize.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. The applicant must be aware that there is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB.

The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.










Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until Present, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT- COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE .
B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT
If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:
                  DA Military Review Boards Agency
                  Management Information and Support Directorate
                  Armed Forces Reading Room
                  Washington, D.C. 20310-1809

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

                  Naval Council of Personnel Boards
                  Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                  Washington Navy Yard
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501552

    Original file (ND0501552.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Commanding Officer’s comments: “Airman Recruit K_(Applicant) received nonjudicial punishment on two separate occasions for assault upon other service member’s and insubordinate conduct toward a Second Class Petty Officer. The Applicant’s misconduct, warranting separation for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and the commission of a serious offense, is clearly...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01335

    Original file (ND02-01335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01335 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20020923, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. I never received the transfer to MA school instead I was shipped back to the USS Elliot after my 6 month had past.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01053

    Original file (ND03-01053.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01053 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030530. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. I went before a Chief’s board and told them

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00665

    Original file (ND04-00665.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00665 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040317. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After we were sent back to home port in Japan, it all started again, so after being at Sea for 4 months we wanted to celebrate.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00517

    Original file (ND03-00517.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to medical. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s ECG report undtdApplicant’s Medical Consultation, Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes, dtd May 1, 2000Applicant’s Radiologic Exam Report dtd Aug 23, 2001 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500128

    Original file (ND0500128.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00128 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20041029. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I went on to serve my time on restriction.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500656

    Original file (ND0500656.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B, C, and D).The Applicant infers that she was denied due process during her administrative discharge from the Navy. Additionally, in response to the medical issues raised by the Applicant, the Board reviewed the Applicant's health records and found that the Applicant was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01012

    Original file (ND04-01012.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I confronted him one last time and asked him for my money because the check wasn’t at my apartment nor was it in the room. In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, Larceny and wrongful appropriation; or Article 123, Forgery if adjudged at a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00120

    Original file (ND01-00120.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605). After a thorough review of the records, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).In response to the applicant’s issue, the Board has no obligation to change the applicant's discharge in order to allow him to obtain better employment. At this time, the applicant has not provided...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00552

    Original file (ND02-00552.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00552 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020314, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I had not ever done drugs in the Navy. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).Issue 1: The Applicant states that he served his country proudly for five years and never had any...